Note Well:
This blog is intended for rational audiences. Its contents are the personal opinions of its author. If you quote from this blog, which you
may do with attribution, please assume personal accountability for any consequences of mischaracterizing these expressed intentions.

Friday, October 4, 2013

The over/under death-trap of seniority-based organizations

Just because you are an expert in the field does not automatically qualify you for a management position.


Oppenheimer and Groves
at remains of Trinity test
in September 1945.

J. Robert Oppenheimer was a brilliant theoretical nuclear physicist. But the management of the Manhattan Project succeeded because General Leslie Groves was a great leader of men, albeit one who knew next to nothing about nuclear physics.

Many large organizations "promote" their best experts to management positions. This is actually a prescription for long-term failure of the organization. This might be counter intuitive, but it need not be so.

Management often gets higher pay. That is an implicit prescription for the organization's ultimate failure in accompishing its organization's goals. It's a lose-lose proposition: The organization gets a less than optimum manager in return for a loss of expertise in the accomplishment of the organization's principal product or service.

The false equivalence of specific technical expertise with general management skills leads to having under-qualified managers, who more often than not are over-compensated, micromanaging subordinates who are much better positioned, albeit under-compensated, to accomplish the technical tasks, including the coordination of the technical efforts.

Woody Allen once quipped, “Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym.” I would take Woody's dictum one step further: "Those who can't teach gym, manage."
Enhanced by Zemanta

Post 2,044 The over/under failure of seniority-based organizations

No comments:

Post a Comment